Measuring quality of care in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: development of an explicit quality indicator set

Prognosis of major bleeding based on residual variables and machine learning for critical patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. This study investigates the use of residual variables and machine learning (ML) models for predicting major bleeding in patients with severe UGIB after their first intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

METHODS

The Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV and eICU databases were used. Conventional ML and long short-term memory models were constructed using pre-ICU and ICU admission day data to predict the recurrence of major gastrointestinal bleeding. In the models, residual data were utilized by subtracting the normal range from the test result. The models included eight algorithms. Shapley additive explanations and saliency maps were used for feature interpretability.

RESULTS

Twenty-five ML models were developed using data from 2604 patients. The light gradient-boosting machine algorithm model using pre-ICU admission residual data outperformed other models that used test results directly, with an AUC of 0.96. The key factors included aspartate aminotransferase, blood urea nitrogen, albumin, length of ICU admission, and respiratory rate.

CONCLUSIONS

ML models using residuals improved the accuracy and interpretability in predicting major bleeding during ICU admission in patients with UGIB. These interpretable features may facilitate the early identification and management of high-risk patients, thereby improving hemodynamic stability and outcomes.

How Can Patient's Risk Dictate the Timing of Endoscopy in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding?

INTRODUCTION

Although upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) management has improved substantially in the last decades, there is still much controversy regarding the optimal timing for performance of endoscopy. Recent guidelines suggest performing an early endoscopy within 24 h of nonvariceal UGIB (NVUGIB) presentation, although its impact on patients with different bleeding risks remains unclear.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of performing endoscopy within 24 h on NVUGIB outcomes and to compare it in patients with lower-risk vs. higher-risk bleeding.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients undergoing upper endoscopy for suspected NVUGIB over 4 years. Demographic, clinical, biochemical, endoscopic, and outcome data were collected. Lower-risk bleeding was defined as a Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) <12 and higher-risk bleeding was defined as a GBS ≥12.

RESULTS

A total of 298 patients with suspected NVUGIB were included, 55% of whom had higher-risk bleeding. Endoscopy was performed within 24 h in 62.1% of the patients. In lower-risk bleeding patients, performance of endoscopy within 24 h was associated with a higher need for endoscopic treatment (OR = 2.6; 95% CI 1.2-5.7; p = 0.004), a lower 30-day mortality (OR = 0.41; 95% CI 0.27-0.63; p = 0.03), and a lower need for transfusion (OR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.36-0.92; p = 0.02). In higher-risk bleeding patients, there were no statistically significant differences in NVUGIB outcomes in performing endoscopy within 24 h.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy within 24 h of presentation was associated with a lower need for transfusion, a higher need for endoscopic treatment, and a lower 30-day mortality in lower-risk NVUGIB patients. Thus, performing endoscopy within the first 24 h of presentation can have a positive impact on NVUGIB outcomes even in lower-risk bleeding.

Quality of Care Indicators in Patients with Acute Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common and expensive condition. Improving quality of care in AP is vital to minimizing cost and improving patient outcomes. However, there has been little work accomplished toward developing and validating explicit quality indicators (QIs) in AP.

AIMS

To define quality of care in patients with AP by developing explicit QIs using standardized techniques.

METHODS

We used the UCLA/RAND Delphi panel approach to combine a comprehensive literature review with the collective judgment of experts to identify a defined set of process measures for AP.

RESULTS

We produced 164 candidate QIs after a comprehensive literature review. After Delphi review, 75 had a median rating ≥ 7. We excluded 11 QIs where the disagreement index exceeded 1.0 and combined indicators overlapping in content to produce a final list of 22 QIs. Overall, 8 QIs related to diagnosis, prevention, or determination of etiology, 2 QIs focused on determination of severity, 3 QIs captured fluid resuscitation, 2 QIs measured nutrition, 1 QI use of antibiotics, and 6 QIs captured endoscopic or surgical management.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed 22 QIs spanning the spectrum of AP management including diagnosis, risk stratification, and pharmacological and endoscopic therapy. These QIs will facilitate future quality improvement by practitioners and organizations who treat patients with AP and further identify areas that are amenable to improvement to enhance patient care. We anticipate that this QI set will represent the first step in determining a framework for demonstrating value in the care of patients with AP.

Impact of Insurance Status and Race on Outcomes in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: A Nationwide Analysis

BACKGROUND AND GOALS

We examined the interaction between race, insurance, and important outcomes in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH).

STUDY

Adults with NVUGIH were selected from the National Inpatient Sample.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

in-hospital mortality.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

treatment modalities [esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), early EGD, and endoscopic or radiologic therapy], and resource utilization (length of hospital stay and total hospitalization charges).

RESULTS

Mortality was similar for Medicare and private insurance [adjusted odds ratios (aOR): 1.15 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.47), P=0.24], but higher for under/uninsured patients [aOR: 1.84 (CI: 1.42 to 2.40), P<0.01]. Compared with Medicare, patients with private insurance had more EGDs [aOR: 1.35 (CI: 1.23 to 1.48), P<0.01], early EGDs [aOR: 1.29 (CI: 1.21 to 1.38), P<0.01], and endoscopic [aOR: 1.19 (CI: 1.11 to 1.27), P<0.01], or radiologic therapy [aOR:1.35 (CI: 1.06 to 1.71), P=0.01]. Patients who were under/uninsured had less EGDs [aOR: 0.84 (CI: 0.76 to 0.91), P<0.01] or endoscopic therapy [aOR: 0.74 (CI: 0.68 to 0.81), P<0.01], but similar odds of early EGD [aOR: 0.95 (CI: 0.88 to 1.02), P=0.13] or radiologic therapy [aOR: 1.01 (CI: 0.75 to 1.37), P=0.75]. Compared with whites, blacks had lower [aOR: 0.73 (CI: 0.58 to 0.93), P=0.01] and Native Americans higher mortality [aOR: 2.60 (CI: 1.57 to 4.13), P<0.01]. Blacks were less likely [aOR: 0.86 (CI: 0.79 to 0.94), P<0.01] and Asians more likely [aOR: 1.24 (CI: 1.05 to 1.47), P=0.01] to have EGDs. Both blacks and Hispanics had lower, whereas Asians had higher early EGD rates. Patients with private insurance had lower total charges [adjusted mean difference: -$2761 (CI: -$4617 to -$906), P<0.01].

CONCLUSIONS

Insurance and race have independent effects on NVUGIH mortality, therapeutic modalities used, and resource utilization. Black and under/uninsured patients have the worst outcomes.

Quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

All healthcare systems require valid ways to evaluate service delivery. The objective of this study was to identify existing content validated quality indicators (QIs) for responsible use of medicines (RUM) and classify them using multiple frameworks to identify gaps in current quality measurements.

DESIGN

Systematic review without meta-analysis.

SETTING

All care settings.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, International Pharmaceutical Abstract, MEDLINE, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2018. An internet search was also conducted. Articles were included if they described medication-related QIs developed using consensus methods. Government agency websites listing QIs for RUM were also included.

ANALYSIS

Several multidimensional frameworks were selected to assess the scope of QI coverage. These included Donabedian's framework (structure, process and outcome), the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system and a validated classification for causes of drug-related problems (c-DRPs; drug selection, drug form, dose selection, treatment duration, drug use process, logistics, monitoring, adverse drug reactions and others).

RESULTS

2431 content validated QIs were identified from 131 articles and 5 websites. Using Donabedian's framework, the majority of QIs were process indicators. Based on the ATC code, the largest number of QIs pertained to medicines for nervous system (ATC code: N), followed by anti-infectives for systemic use (J) and cardiovascular system (C). The most common c-DRPs pertained to 'drug selection', followed by 'monitoring' and 'drug use process'.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was the first systematic review classifying QIs for RUM using multiple frameworks. The list of the identified QIs can be used as a database for evaluating the achievement of RUM. Although many QIs were identified, this approach allowed for the identification of gaps in quality measurement of RUM. In order to more effectively evaluate the extent to which RUM has been achieved, further development of QIs may be required.

Thirty-Day Readmission Among Patients With Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage and Effects on Outcomes

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We aimed to determine the rate of hospital readmission within 30 days of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage and its impact on mortality, morbidity, and health care use in the United States.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Readmission Database for the year 2014 (data on 14.9 million hospital stays at 2048 hospitals in 22 states). We collected data on hospital readmissions of 203,220 adults who were hospitalized for urgent non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage and discharged. The primary outcome was rate of all-cause readmission within 30 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes were reasons for readmission, readmission mortality rate, morbidity (shock and prolonged mechanical ventilation) and resource use (length of stay and total hospitalization costs and charges). Independent risk factors for readmission were identified using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

The 30-day rate of readmission was 13%. Only 18% of readmissions were due to recurrent non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The rate of death among patients readmitted to the hospital (4.7%) was higher than that for index admissions (1.9%) (P < .01). A higher proportion of readmitted patients had morbidities requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation (1.5%) compared with index admissions (0.8%) (P < .01). A total of 133,368 hospital days was associated with readmission, and the total health care in-hospital economic burden was $30.3 million (in costs) and $108 million (in charges). Independent predictors of readmission were Medicaid insurance, higher Charlson comorbidity score, lower income, residence in a metropolitan area, hemorrhagic shock, and longer stays in the hospital. Older age, private or no insurance, upper endoscopy, and prolonged mechanical ventilation were associated with lower odds for readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective study of patients hospitalized for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage, 13% are readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of discharge. Readmission is associated with higher mortality, morbidity, and resource use. Most readmissions are not for recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding.

A New Scoring System to Predict Poor Clinical Outcomes in Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Patients with High-Risk Stigmata

AIMS

To explore the risk factors for rebleeding in acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients with high-risk stigmata after endoscopic hemostasis and to develop a new scoring system for them.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study was conducted from January 2012 to June 2017. The logistic regression model was used to explore risk factors of poor clinical outcomes. Accuracy of new scoring systems was compared with Rockall score (RS) and Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) using receiver operating characteristics curve.

RESULTS

Two hundred nine patients were included. In multivariate regression analysis, systolic blood pressure, endoscopic hemostasis method, hemoglobin, blood urea nitrogen, and serum creatinine were identified as indicators for rebleeding. New scoring systems with 4 variables and 5 variables based on these 5 risk factors were chosen. The 4-variable scoring system outperformed GBS in predicting rebleeding while 5-variable scoring system outperformed RS and GBS in predicting rebleeding significantly. Score 2 was identified as the best cut-off of these 2 scoring systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Systolic blood pressure, endoscopic hemostasis method, hemoglobin, blood urea nitrogen, and serum creatinine were all associated with poor clinical outcomes. The new scoring systems had greater accuracy than RS and GBS in predicting rebleeding. Further external validation should be performed to verify the results.

Coprescribing proton-pump inhibitors with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: risks versus benefits

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often coadministered with proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) to reduce NSAID-induced gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. This coadministration is generally regarded as safe, and is included in many of the guidelines on NSAID prescription. However, recent evidence indicates that the GI risks associated with NSAIDs can be potentiated when they are combined with PPIs. This review discusses the GI effects and complications of NSAIDs and how PPIs may potentiate these effects, options for prevention of GI side effects, and appropriate use of PPIs in combination with NSAIDs.

Glasgow Blatchford Score of limited benefit for low-risk urban patients: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Most patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) are hospitalized. Risk-stratifying UGIB with scoring tools may decrease avoidable admissions, thereby reducing the cost of care. We sought to describe how frequently low-risk UGIB patients present to urban emergency departments (ED) and the proportion who are admitted to examine how incorporating risk scores into decision support might diminish healthcare utilization in this population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 This is a retrospective cohort study of ED patients presenting from 2009 - 2013 to three urban hospitals that do not use electronic UGIB decision support. We used ED disposition diagnosis codes (ICD-9) to identify patients followed by manual chart review for verification and additional data collection. Patients with a Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS) of 0 were classified as low risk. We also surveyed ED physicians at these hospitals to assess their beliefs about UGIB decision support.

RESULTS

 Over the study period, 66 patients (13.2 per year) presented to the ED with low-risk UGIB. Of these, 10 patients (15.2 %) were admitted and none required endoscopic hemostasis. Most survey respondents (55.6 %, n = 20) were aware of UGIB risk scores but a minority (19.4 %, n = 7) used one.

CONCLUSIONS

 Low-risk UGIB patients infrequently present to the ED and only a minority are admitted. Despite advocacy to incorporate decision support into routine clinical care, ED physicians independently identified low risk patients. There is insufficient evidence to suggest the magnitude of this problem is large enough to warrant implementation of decision support for low risk UGIB.

Quality indicators for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A comparative study of outcomes after an improvement programme in a tertiary hospital

INTRODUCTION

There is an opportunity for improvement in the recording and measuring of quality indicators. However, no previous experiences exist in our field in terms of their compliance in esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

OBJECTIVE

To analyse compliance with EGD quality criteria and evaluate improvement after conducting a training programme.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Comparative study of 2 cohorts: one retrospective (control group) and one prospective (intervention group), before and after a training programme consisting of an information session and the report writing improvement programme. The quality indicators proposed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American College of Gastroenterology were used.

RESULTS

A total of 1,200 EGDs were included in a sequential manner (600 in each group). Following the training programme, a significant improvement was observed in the following indicators: documented indication (93 vs. 99.8%; P<0.01), documented full examinations (94.7 vs. 97.3%; P<0.01), correct performance (63.7 vs. 87.9%; P<0.01), appropriate biopsies according to protocols (57.9 vs. 83.8%; P<0.01), photo-documentation of described lesions (84.1 vs. 94.9%; P<0.01), photo-documentation per segment (52.9 vs. 70.5%; P<0.01) and correct overall assessment (56,9 vs. 90.5%; P<0.01). Biopsies for coeliac disease, documented indication, full examination and correct performance, if it went ahead, exceeded the recommended standard.

CONCLUSION

A very simple training programme improves EGD quality indicators, with the majority reaching the standards recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American College of Gastroenterology.

Patient satisfaction in the management of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: Results of a Delphi study among patients and physicians

GOALS

To determine factors contributing to satisfaction with treatment in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) from both the patients and the physicians perspectives.

BACKGROUND

Despite the impact of UC on different aspects of daily life, patient's and physician's satisfaction with clinical management has been poorly evaluated.

STUDY

A Delphi study involving 22 patients and 20 clinicians was conducted. The patient's questionnaire included 285 items regarding diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up, whereas the physician's questionnaire added 32 specific items for clinicians. Relevance of items was scored from 1 (not at all important) to 9 (very important). Recommendations were based on very highly rated items.

RESULTS

Most items were rated consistently by patients and physicians with some exceptions. Patients emphasized the choice of moderate flare-ups to be followed at the hospital setting rather than in primary care as well as to be informed on aspects, such as diet and impact of UC on their health and lifestyle. Treatment-related efficacy, safety, and improved quality of life were relevant for both patients and physicians. Physicians believed that to reduce pill burden was a crucial aspect to improve patient's satisfaction. Patients preferred oral administration treatment over rectal treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified specific aspects related to the management of mild-to-moderate UC that both patients and physicians considered to be highly relevant for patient satisfaction. Recommendation based on these factors would be important at the time of designing and implementing strategies targeting satisfaction in UC patients.

Recent Developments in the Endoscopic Treatment of Patients with Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is an internal medical emergency. Endoscopic hemostasis has been shown to improve the survival rate of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. Although the established hemostatic modalities, including injection, thermal therapy, and mechanical therapy, are effective in controlling peptic ulcer bleeding, hemostasis can be difficult to achieve in some cases. As a result, recent, new endoscopic hemostatic modalities, including over-the-scope clips, topical hemostatic sprays, and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided angiotherapy, have been developed.

Guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has compiled a set of guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using evidence-based methods. The major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. As a result, these guidelines mainly focus on peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, although bleeding from other causes is also overviewed. From the epidemiological aspect, in recent years in Japan, bleeding from drug-related ulcers has become predominant in comparison with bleeding from Helicobacter pylori (HP)-related ulcers, owing to an increase in the aging population and coverage of HP eradication therapy by national health insurance. As for treatment, endoscopic hemostasis, in which there are a variety of methods, is considered to be the first-line treatment for bleeding from almost all causes. It is very important to precisely evaluate the severity of the patient's condition and stabilize the patient's vital signs with intensive care for successful endoscopic hemostasis. Additionally, use of antisecretory agents is recommended to prevent rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, especially for gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Eighteen statements with evidence and recommendation levels have been made by the JGES committee of these guidelines according to evidence obtained from clinical research studies. However, some of the statements that are supported by a low level of evidence must be confirmed by further clinical research.

Utility of the Shock Index and Other Risk-Scoring Tools in Patients with Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding frequently require hospitalization and have a mortality rate that ranges from 6% to 14%. These patients need rapid clinical assessment to determine the urgency of endoscopy and the need for endoscopic treatment. Risk-scoring tools, such as the Rockall score and the Glasgow-Blatchford score, are commonly used in this assessment. These tools clearly help identify high-risk patients but do not necessarily have good predictive value in identifying important outcomes. Their diagnostic accuracy in identifying rebleeding and mortality ranges from poor to fair. The shock index (heart rate divided by systolic blood pressure) provides an integrated assessment of the cardiovascular status. It can be easily calculated during the initial evaluation of patients and monitoring after treatment. The shock index has been used in a few studies in patients with acute GI bleeding, including studies to determine which patients need emergency endoscopy, to predict complications after corrosive ingestions, to identify delayed hemorrhage following pancreatic surgery, and to evaluate the utility of angiograms to identify sites of GI bleeding. Not all studies have found the shock index to be useful in patients with GI bleeding, however. This may reflect the unpredictable natural history of various etiologies of GI bleeding, comorbidity that may influence blood pressure and/or heart rate, and inadequate data acquisition. The shock index needs more formal study in patients with GI bleeding admitted to medical intensive care units. Important considerations include the initial response to resuscitation, persistent bleeding following initial treatment, and rebleeding following a period of stabilization. In addition, it needs correlation with other risk-scoring tools.

Red Blood Cell Transfusions and Iron Therapy for Patients Presenting with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Survey of Canadian Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists

Introduction. There is limited data evaluating physician transfusion practices in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Methods. A web-based survey was sent to 500 gastroenterologists and hepatologists across Canada. The survey included clinical vignettes where physicians were asked to choose transfusion thresholds. Results. The response rate was 41% (N = 203). The reported hemoglobin (Hgb) transfusion trigger differed by up to 50 g/L. Transfusions were more liberal in hemodynamically unstable patients compared to stable patients (mean Hgb of 86.7 g/L versus 71.0 g/L; p < 0.001). Many clinicians (24%) reported transfusing a hemodynamically unstable patient at a Hgb threshold of 100 g/L and the majority (57%) are transfusing two units of RBCs as initial management. Patients with coronary artery disease (mean Hgb of 84.0 g/L versus 71.0 g/L; p < 0.01) or cirrhosis (mean Hgb of 74.4 g/L versus 71.0 g/L; p < 0.01) were transfused more liberally than healthy patients. Fewer than 15% would prescribe iron to patients with UGIB who are anemic upon discharge. Conclusions. The transfusion practices of gastroenterologists in the management of UGIB vary widely and more high-quality evidence is needed to help assess the efficacy and safety of selected transfusion thresholds in varying patients presenting with UGIB.

Diagnostic and therapeutic value of emergency endoscopy in acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients with high-risk Rockall score

AIM: To investigate the diagnostic and therapeutic effect of emergency endoscopy in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) patients with a high-risk Rockall score.

METHODS: The clinical data for 55 high-risk patients with NVUGIB treated at Department of Gastroenterology of Shanxi Coal Center Hospital from August 2011 to December 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. Of these patients, 30 who underwent endoscopy in 24-48 h were allocated to the emergency endoscopy group, and 25 who underwent endoscopy after 48 h were allocated to the control group. Data including age, sex, bleeding history, chronic disorder history, time from bleeding to endoscopic examination, blood transfusion, shock index, hemoglobin, length of hospital stay, expenses, Rockall score, etiology diagnosis rate, length of hospital stay, and mortality were compared between the two groups to find the variables with a significant difference.

RESULTS: The two groups had no significant differences in etiology (P > 0.05). There were statistical differences between the two groups in etiology diagnosis rate (93.33% vs 56.00%, P = 0.001 < 0.01), hospitalization time (10.0 d ± 6.7 d vs 16.4 d ± 7.3 d, P < 0.05), and cost of hospitalization (13034.4 yuan ± 9967.2 yuan vs 14110.2 yuan ± 9780.8 yuan, P < 0.05). The two groups had no significant differences in mortality rate (6.67 vs 12.00%, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Emergency endoscopy is a reliable and safe modality for NVUGIB patients with a high-risk Rockall score.

Efficacy of emergency endoscopy in treatment of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

AIM: To evaluate the clinical effects of emergency endoscopy in the treatment of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of 126 patients with acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding who were treated by emergency endoscopy or elective endoscopy at our hospital between March 2010 and September 2013. The causes of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding were analyzed. The rate of bleeding, the success rate of hemostasis, rebleeding rate, surgery rate and hospitalization time were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS: The most common cause of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding was peptic ulcer (44.4%), followed by acute gastric mucosal lesions (12.7%) and gastrointestinal cancer (11.9%). A total of 116 (126) cases of bleeding were detected, and the positive rate was 92.1%. The rate of bleeding was significantly higher in the emergency endoscopy group (97.1%) than in the elective endoscopy group (85.7%) (P < 0.05). The rebleeding rate (2.9%), surgical rate (1.5%) and hospitalization time were significantly lower in the emergency endoscopic group than in the elective endoscopy (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Emergency endoscopy is convenient, efficient, and less invasive, and is the preferred treatment for acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Timing of Endoscopy and Ways to Improve Endoscopic Visualization

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy is the cornerstone of diagnosis and management of patients presenting with acute UGI bleeding. Once hemodynamically resuscitated, early endoscopy (performed within 24 hours of patient presentation) ensures accurate identification of the bleeding source, facilitates risk stratification based on endoscopic stigmata, and allows endotherapy to be delivered where indicated. Moreover, the preendoscopy use of a prokinetic agent (eg, i.v. erythromycin), especially in patients with a suspected high probability of having blood or clots in the stomach before undergoing endoscopy, may result in improved endoscopic visualization, a higher diagnostic yield, and less need for repeat endoscopy.

Endoscopic management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding

This review discusses the indications, technical aspects, and comparative effectiveness of the endoscopic treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding caused by peptic ulcer. Pre-endoscopic considerations, such as the use of prokinetics and timing of endoscopy, are reviewed. In addition, this article examines aspects of postendoscopic care such as the effectiveness, dosing, and duration of postendoscopic proton-pump inhibitors, Helicobacter pylori testing, and benefits of treatment in terms of preventing rebleeding; and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet agents, and oral anticoagulants, including direct thrombin and Xa inhibitors, following acute peptic ulcer bleeding.

A national survey on the initial management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

GOALS

To evaluate the initial management of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the United States.

BACKGROUND

Various guidelines have addressed the initial management of upper GI bleeding, but the extent to which these guidelines are followed in clinical practice is unknown.

STUDY

We conducted a national survey of emergency physicians, internists, and gastroenterologists practicing in hospitals affiliated with an ACGME-accredited gastroenterology fellowship. Participants rated their agreement and adherence to 9 preendoscopic quality indicators for the initial management of upper GI bleeding. Awareness, use, and barriers to the use of early prognostic risk scores were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 1402 surveys were completed, with an estimated response rate of 11.3%. Gastroenterologists and trainees agreed with the quality indicators more than nongastroenterologists and attending physicians, respectively. There was no difference in the application of the quality indicators by specialty or clinical position. Among all physicians, 53% had ever heard of and 30% had ever used an upper GI bleeding risk score. More gastroenterologists than nongastroenterologists had heard of (82% vs. 44%, P<0.001) and used (51% vs. 23%, P<0.001) a risk score. There was no difference between attending physicians and trainees. Gastroenterologists and attending physicians more often cited lack of utility as a reason to not use risk scores, whereas nongastroenterologists and trainees more often cited lack of knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Among emergency physicians, internists, and gastroenterologists in the United States, agreement with upper GI bleeding initial management guidelines was high but adherence--especially pertaining to the use of risk scores--was low.

Adherence to guidelines: a national audit of the management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The REASON registry

OBJECTIVES

To assess process of care in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) using a national cohort, and to identify predictors of adherence to 'best practice' standards.

METHODS

Consecutive charts of patients hospitalized for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding across 21 Canadian hospitals were reviewed. Data regarding initial presentation, endoscopic management and outcomes were collected. Results were compared with 'best practice' using established guidelines on NVUGIB. Adherence was quantified and independent predictors were evaluated using multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 2020 patients (89.4% NVUGIB, variceal in 10.6%) were included (mean [± SD] age 66.3±16.4 years; 38.4% female). Endoscopy was performed in 1612 patients: 1533 with NVUGIB had endoscopic lesions (63.1% ulcers; high-risk stigmata in 47.8%). Early endoscopy was performed in 65.6% and an assistant was present in 83.5%. Only 64.5% of patients with high-risk stigmata received endoscopic hemostasis; 9.8% of patients exhibiting low-risk stigmata also did. Intravenous proton pump inhibitor was administered after endoscopic hemostasis in 95.7%. Rebleeding and mortality rates were 10.5% and 9.4%, respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that low American Society of Anesthesiologists score patients had fewer assistants present during endoscopy (OR 0.63 [95% CI 0.48 to 0.83), a hemoglobin level <70 g⁄L predicted inappropriate high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitor use in patients with low-risk stigmata, and endoscopies performed during regular hours were associated with longer delays from presentation (OR 0.33 [95% CI 0.24 to 0.47]).

CONCLUSION

There was variability between the process of care and 'best practice' in NVUGIB. Certain patient and situational characteristics may influence guideline adherence. Dissemination initiatives must identify and focus on such considerations to improve quality of care.

Low adherence to Helicobacter pylori testing in hospitalized patients with bleeding peptic ulcer disease

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) testing in patients with bleeding ulcers is recommended by society guidelines and considered a quality indicator. The aim of the study is to examine the proportion of patients with bleeding ulcers who had H. pylori testing and identify predictors associated with H. pylori testing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive hospitalized patients with bleeding ulcers documented endoscopically at a single center from 10/2004-5/2011 were identified retrospectively from an endoscopy database. The proportion of patients undergoing direct H. pylori testing (histology, rapid urease test, breath test or stool antigen) and any H. pylori testing (direct or serologic) were determined.

RESULTS

Among 330 patients with bleeding ulcers, 105 (32%, 95% CI 27-37%) underwent direct testing and another 52 (16%, 95% CI 12-20%) had serologic testing during a median follow-up of 9 months (range, 0-86). H. pylori testing occurred at the index hospitalization in 146 (93%) of the 157 patients tested. Among the 105 patients who had direct H. pylori testing, 90 (86%) had biopsy-based testing during the initial endoscopy. On multivariate analysis, undergoing biopsy of a gastric ulcer was strongly associated with having direct H. pylori testing performed (OR = 5.1, 95% CI 2.3-11.5; p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients hospitalized with bleeding ulcers, less than half received H. pylori testing and less than a third received the more accurate direct testing. Most of the direct H. pylori testing was biopsy-based with very few being tested after the index hospitalization. Efforts to increase H. pylori testing in patients with bleeding ulcers are needed to improve outcomes.

Delphi consensus statement: Quality Indicators for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Comprehensive Care Units

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

While it is commonly accepted that Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) Comprehensive Care Units (ICCUs) facilitate the delivery of quality care to Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis patients, it remains unclear how an ICCU should be defined or evaluated. The aim of the present study was to develop a comprehensive set of Quality Indicators (QIs) of structure, process, and outcomes for defining and evaluating an ICCU.

METHODS

A Delphi consensus-based approach with a standardized three-step process was used to identify a core set of QIs. The process included an exhaustive search using complementary approaches to identify potential QIs, and two Delphi voting rounds to select the QIs defining the core requirements for an ICCU.

RESULTS

The consensus selected a core set of 56 QIs (12 structure, 20 process and 24 outcome). Structure and process QIs highlighted the need for multidisciplinary management and continuity of care. The minimal IBD team should include an IBD nurse, gastroenterologists, radiologists, surgeons, endoscopists and stoma management specialists. ICCUs should be able to provide both outpatient and inpatient care and admission should not break the continuity of care. Outcome QIs focused on the adequate prophylaxis of disease complication and drug adverse events, the need to monitor appropriateness of treatment and the need to reinforce patient autonomy by providing adequate information and facilitating the patients' participation in their own care.

CONCLUSIONS

The present Delphi consensus identified a set of core QIs that may be useful for evaluating and certifying ICCUs.

Improving quality of care in peptic ulcer bleeding: nationwide cohort study of 13,498 consecutive patients in the Danish Clinical Register of Emergency Surgery

OBJECTIVES

The treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is complex, and mortality remains high. We present results from a nationwide initiative to monitor and improve the quality of care (QOC) in PUB.

METHODS

All Danish hospitals treating PUB patients between 2004 and 2011 prospectively registered demographic, clinical, and prognostic data. QOC was evaluated using eight process and outcome indicators, including time to initial endoscopy, hemostasis obtainment, proportion undergoing surgery, rebleeding risks, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 13,498 PUB patients (median age 74 years) were included, of which one-quarter were in-hospital bleeders. Preadmission use of anticoagulants, multiple coexisting diseases, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists scores increased between 2004 and 2011. Considerable improvements were observed for most QOC indicators over time. Endoscopic treatment was successful with primary hemostasis achieved in more patients (94% in 2010-2011 vs. 89% in 2004-2006, relative risk (RR) 1.06 (95% confidence intervals 1.04-1.08)), endoscopy delay for hemodynamically unstable patients decreased during this period (43% vs. 34% had endoscopy within 6 h, RR 1.33 (1.10-1.61)), and fewer patients underwent open surgery (4% vs. 6%, RR 0.72 (0.59-0.87)). After controlling for time changes in prognostic factors, rebleeding rates improved (13% vs. 18%, adjusted RR 0.77 (0.66-0.91)). Crude 30-day mortality was unchanged (11% vs. 11%), whereas adjusted mortality decreased nonsignificantly over time (adjusted RR 0.89 (0.78-1.00)).

CONCLUSIONS

QOC in PUB has improved substantially in Denmark, but the 30-day mortality remains high. Future initiatives to improve outcomes may include earlier endoscopy, having fully trained endoscopists on call, and increased focus on managing coexisting disease.

Quality indicators for inflammatory bowel disease: development of process and outcome measures

INTRODUCTION

Variation in adherence to management guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) suggests variable quality of care. Quality indicators (QIs) can be developed to measure the structure, processes, and outcomes of health care delivery. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to develop a set of process and outcome QIs to define quality of care for IBD.

METHODS

Guidelines and position papers for IBD published from 2006 to 2011 were reviewed for potential QIs, which were rated by a multidisciplinary panel. Potential process and outcome QIs were discussed at 3 moderated in-person meetings, with pre-meeting and post-meeting confidential electronic voting. Panelists rated the validity and feasibility of QIs on a 1 through 9 scale; disagreement was assessed using a validated index. QIs rated above 8 were selected for the final set.

RESULTS

More than 500 potential process QIs were extracted from guidelines. Following ratings and discussion by the first panel, 35 process QIs were selected for literature review. After the second panel, 10 process QIs were included in the final set. Candidate outcome QIs were then derived from physician, nurse, and patient input and ratings, in addition to outcomes associated with candidate process QIs. None of the top QIs exhibited disagreement.

CONCLUSIONS

A set of QIs for IBD was developed with expert interpretation of the literature and multidisciplinary input. Outcome QIs focused largely on remission and quality of life, whereas process QIs were aimed at therapeutic optimization and patient safety. Evaluation of these QIs in clinical practice is needed to assess the correlation of performance on process QIs with performance on outcome QIs.